By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,933 Members | 1,686 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 437,933 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

shared buffers

P: n/a
Hi,

In the 7.4.5 version, the code is now trying to use a much larger
value for shared_buffers. I can certainly set this to a lower number
with the -B option. However, my guestion is:

What is the performance issue with setting shared_buffers to something like 45?

In doing some timing on my system, I cannot tell any difference with 45 versus 1000.
Perhaps I am looking at the wrong performance criteria.

Thanks,
Glenn
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

Nov 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
1 Reply


P: n/a
Glenn Sullivan <gl************@varianinc.com> writes:
What is the performance issue with setting shared_buffers to something like 45?
In doing some timing on my system, I cannot tell any difference with 45 versus 1000.


What are you timing exactly? Almost every benchmark I've ever seen is
much happier with shared_buffers of at least a few hundred. Otherwise
you spend too much time copying data between kernel and user space.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 23 '05 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.